4 ms·

Google: OK. Australian news media: No, come back! I don't see how their demand work out well for them.

by kiba 6y ago

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
There's a lot of countries moving this direction. The problem is, Google is more powerful than most countries these days. Google can afford to cut a country off and let them suffer until they relent. All of these countries need to unify on this requirement at the same time. Google can cut Australia off, but can they cut off Australia, France, and Spain off? What about Australia and the entire European Union?
- kiba 6y ago
  I think the media companies are in the wrong. Google is providing a beneficial arrangement, and the media companies are demanding that google pays them.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    Google has been bleeding the media dry. One of the graphs shown yesterday during the antitrust hearing was about how Google has shifted it's original business model of showing ads on third party sites (where they have to give most of the revenue to those sites, funding those sites) to a business model of showing ads predominantly on it's own sites, where it keeps all of the ad revenue. Every single year, Google's ad business shifts more revenue from the "shares with third party sites" segment over to the "keeps all of it" segment. So while Google Search used to heavily fund news, every year, Google's cut gets bigger, and news orgs' cut gets smaller. The second graph here is what was shown in the hearing, and shows the numbers pulled from Alphabet's reports: https://medium.com/beyond-devices/googles-increasing-reliance-on-its-own-sites-15b7327c4855 https://medium.com/beyond-devices/googles-increasing-relianc... "Google Network Members" effectively refers to website owners like news publishers which display ads.
    - jefftk 6y ago
      > One of the graphs shown yesterday during the antitrust hearing was about how Google has shifted it's original business model of showing ads on third party sites (where they have to give most of the revenue to those sites, funding those sites) to a business model of showing ads predominantly on it's own sites, where it keeps all of the ad revenue. Do you have a link to the graph? My understanding was that Google's original business model was "provide a search engine, and show ads on it", and showing ads on third-party sites is newer? (Disclosure: I work at Google, speaking only for myself)
      - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
        The graph is in the link above. The revenue shift is constantly moving away from sites where Google shares revenue with other sites, such as news publishers, and increasing on Google's own properties, which do not get shared with news publishers. This explains why journalism is running out of money while Google is worth over a trillion. By lifting their content and keeping users (and ad views) directly on Google, Google profits at content producers' expense. Re: "originally", I was probably wrong there. DoubleClick in 2008 was where Google absorbed this side of the ad business, I believe. But it was the side that was fundamental to journalism. There was a time when Google could argue it's ad platforms was sponsoring the free web and all, but that's increasingly no longer the case.
        syshum 6y ago
        "journalism" is running out of money because there is no journalism anymore, it is activism, and propaganda disguised as "journalism" They are losing money not because of Google, but because they are in a Twitter echo chamber feeding off each other and aliening large parts of their audience
    - kyboren 6y ago
      > Google has been bleeding the media dry. I don't think that's a fair characterization. Would you say that Ford bled blacksmiths and carriage makers dry? Technology moves on. Newspapers are dying because their business model blows in the current infoscape. People spend most of their attention on things other than news, and news is the ultimate information commodity. > Every single year, Google's ad business shifts more revenue from the "shares with third party sites" segment over to the "keeps all of it" segment. The linked article shows that the "keeps all of it" portion has been growing faster than the "shares with third party sites" portion. I don't think it's fair to say that they shift revenue from one to the other. > So while Google Search used to heavily fund news, every year, Google's cut gets bigger, and news orgs' cut gets smaller. This is not shown by the data in the linked article. Clicks and CPC are slightly down for "shares with third party sites" but that does not say anything about news sites in particular.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- frockington1 6y ago
  Google will outlast the EU. Tensions have been high for years and Brexit seems to have less repercussions than initially thought. On top of that you have Germany strong arming France into giving weak nations billions. Its shaky from the weakest to the strongest countries.
  - pgeorgi 6y ago
    > Brexit seems to have less repercussions than initially thought There are still agreements. Let's see in 2021. The question if the UK requires quarantine of its tourists coming back from Spain will be overshadowed by the question if the tourists get there in the first place. > you have Germany strong arming France into giving weak nations billions Rather the other way around.
  - lhopki01 6y ago
    You think Germany is the one strong arming France into this? Germany has always been one of the countries most against fiscal transfers. Brexit seems to have less repercussions than initially thought because it hasn't happened yet! The UK is still in the single market and the customs union till end end of the year.
- wernercd 6y ago
  So... if all countries at once said "Pay us for listing news.com" at the same time... and google said "go stuff yourself" and de-listed news.com globally... How would that be different than 1 country at a time? If Google refused to list news that they had to pay to list... across the board... Seems like it's simply making the process easier for Google as it'll be a one time fight.

Google: OK. Australian news media: No, come back! I don't see how their demand work out well for them.

by kiba 6y ago

Google: OK. Australian news media: No, come back! I don't see how their demand work out well for them.

There's a lot of countries moving this direction. The problem is, Google is more powerful than most countries these days. Google can afford to cut a country off and let them suffer until they relent. All of these countries need to unify on this requirement at the same time. Google can cut Australia off, but can they cut off Australia, France, and Spain off? What about Australia and the entire European Union?

kiba 6y ago
I think the media companies are in the wrong. Google is providing a beneficial arrangement, and the media companies are demanding that google pays them.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Google has been bleeding the media dry. One of the graphs shown yesterday during the antitrust hearing was about how Google has shifted it's original business model of showing ads on third party sites (where they have to give most of the revenue to those sites, funding those sites) to a business model of showing ads predominantly on it's own sites, where it keeps all of the ad revenue. Every single year, Google's ad business shifts more revenue from the "shares with third party sites" segment over to the "keeps all of it" segment. So while Google Search used to heavily fund news, every year, Google's cut gets bigger, and news orgs' cut gets smaller. The second graph here is what was shown in the hearing, and shows the numbers pulled from Alphabet's reports: https://medium.com/beyond-devices/googles-increasing-reliance-on-its-own-sites-15b7327c4855 https://medium.com/beyond-devices/googles-increasing-relianc... "Google Network Members" effectively refers to website owners like news publishers which display ads.
  - jefftk 6y ago
    > One of the graphs shown yesterday during the antitrust hearing was about how Google has shifted it's original business model of showing ads on third party sites (where they have to give most of the revenue to those sites, funding those sites) to a business model of showing ads predominantly on it's own sites, where it keeps all of the ad revenue. Do you have a link to the graph? My understanding was that Google's original business model was "provide a search engine, and show ads on it", and showing ads on third-party sites is newer? (Disclosure: I work at Google, speaking only for myself)
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      The graph is in the link above. The revenue shift is constantly moving away from sites where Google shares revenue with other sites, such as news publishers, and increasing on Google's own properties, which do not get shared with news publishers. This explains why journalism is running out of money while Google is worth over a trillion. By lifting their content and keeping users (and ad views) directly on Google, Google profits at content producers' expense. Re: "originally", I was probably wrong there. DoubleClick in 2008 was where Google absorbed this side of the ad business, I believe. But it was the side that was fundamental to journalism. There was a time when Google could argue it's ad platforms was sponsoring the free web and all, but that's increasingly no longer the case.
      - syshum 6y ago
        "journalism" is running out of money because there is no journalism anymore, it is activism, and propaganda disguised as "journalism" They are losing money not because of Google, but because they are in a Twitter echo chamber feeding off each other and aliening large parts of their audience
  - kyboren 6y ago
    > Google has been bleeding the media dry. I don't think that's a fair characterization. Would you say that Ford bled blacksmiths and carriage makers dry? Technology moves on. Newspapers are dying because their business model blows in the current infoscape. People spend most of their attention on things other than news, and news is the ultimate information commodity. > Every single year, Google's ad business shifts more revenue from the "shares with third party sites" segment over to the "keeps all of it" segment. The linked article shows that the "keeps all of it" portion has been growing faster than the "shares with third party sites" portion. I don't think it's fair to say that they shift revenue from one to the other. > So while Google Search used to heavily fund news, every year, Google's cut gets bigger, and news orgs' cut gets smaller. This is not shown by the data in the linked article. Clicks and CPC are slightly down for "shares with third party sites" but that does not say anything about news sites in particular.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
frockington1 6y ago
Google will outlast the EU. Tensions have been high for years and Brexit seems to have less repercussions than initially thought. On top of that you have Germany strong arming France into giving weak nations billions. Its shaky from the weakest to the strongest countries.
- pgeorgi 6y ago
  > Brexit seems to have less repercussions than initially thought There are still agreements. Let's see in 2021. The question if the UK requires quarantine of its tourists coming back from Spain will be overshadowed by the question if the tourists get there in the first place. > you have Germany strong arming France into giving weak nations billions Rather the other way around.
- lhopki01 6y ago
  You think Germany is the one strong arming France into this? Germany has always been one of the countries most against fiscal transfers. Brexit seems to have less repercussions than initially thought because it hasn't happened yet! The UK is still in the single market and the customs union till end end of the year.
wernercd 6y ago
So... if all countries at once said "Pay us for listing news.com" at the same time... and google said "go stuff yourself" and de-listed news.com globally... How would that be different than 1 country at a time? If Google refused to list news that they had to pay to list... across the board... Seems like it's simply making the process easier for Google as it'll be a one time fight.